Loading...
PC Min 06/10/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JUNE 10, 1986 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place., the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF PiINUTES 21/S: Perrine, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1986 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ * ~ COMrNiJICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-10 Application of Mr. Jovan Jovanovic for Jovanovic, J. approval of plans and elevations to allow construction of an automotive repair building on property known as 169-181 Kennedy Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. A continuance to June 24, 1986 is being recommended. Pi/S: Fairbanks, Stanton - That S 86-10 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986, in order that revised plans may be j submitted to address concerns expressed in the Staff Report. I~iotion carried - unanimously (7-0-0). * * ~ -2- PUBLIC fiEARINGS ZC 86-03 Continued public hearing to consider the Pinn, A. application of P1r. Alan Pinn for approval of a zone change from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of 18 townhomes on property known as 1164-1176 Smith Ave. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Concerns previously expressed by Staff and the Site Committee have been resolved in that the structures are no longer "lined up", setbacks have been changed, Smith Ave. elevations have been changed, additional parking has been provided, and some existing trees have been retained; therefore, the Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the difference between R-M zoning and PD zoning on this site in terms of setbacks and allowable units; type of street improvements; and, the zoning on property to the south of the subject site. Mr. Kee discussed the ways in which the project varies from what would be allowable under an R-M zoning: front yard setbacks (22'-27'); sideyard setbacks (9' - 5'3"); and, creation of private street. Under the R-M zoning district, more units would be allowable on this site. Mr. Helms indicated that Public Works is requiring standard street improvements to match other improvements on this street, noting that it is the City Council's policy to require the installation of street improvements at the time of development. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Alan Pinn, applicant, reviewed the project in detail, specifically addressing the San Tomas Policy. He pointed out that the units will come complete ~vith front yard landscaping; there is no parking allowed on one side of the private street; the colors will be earth tones; building materials include lapped siding; and, the single family property owners to the south will largely see a sloping roof 10' from the fence. t•1/S: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That the public hearing on ZC 86-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -3- Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she was not in favor of a density change for this area, in that she felt it assaulted the Council policy for this area. However, she is charged, as a Commissioner, to make certain that once the density is changed, and the General Plan and Zoning Map are consistent, that an application meets the zoning requirements. In this case, the applicant has done a fine job in applying the San Tomas Policy to his development; therefore, she is speaking in favor of approval (with the cautions as stated). Commissioner Dickson stated that the project has minimal driveways and minimal setbacks which will present a dense profile when built. The good features of this application are the excellent reputation of the developer, the good building profiles, and the architecture -- showing just how much can be done on a small lot. Commissioner Dickson noted that he would be speaking in favor of the application. ti/S: Perrine, Christ - AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a zone change from R-1 to PD for the project site; and that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the plans, elevations and development schedule for this project, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas None None. TS 86-03 Pinn Bros. Continued Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of Pinn Bros. Construction - 1164, 1176, and 1180 Smith Ave. Mr. Kee reported that this item is directly related to ZC 86-03 on this evening's agenda, which proposes the construction of 18 townhomes on the project site. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map would allow the creation of 18 single family lots on a private cul-de-sac. The proposed project would be developed at a density of 8.9 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential designation of 6-13 units per gross acre as shown on the General Plan for these properties. Staff is recommending approval of this map, subject to the attached conditions. -4- Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the public hearing on TS 86-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ti/S: Fairbanks, Stanton - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map to be in accord with the General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this map, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. PD 86-01 Continued public hearing to consider Kirk, S. the application of Mr. Sherrel Kirk for approval of a Planned Development Permit; plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of an addition to an existing mini-storage facility on property known as 61 Dillon Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Pir. Kee stated that Staff is recommending. approval as presented, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. ti/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on PD 86-01 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and that the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings, and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the plans, elevations, and development schedule for this project, subject to the attached conditions. -5- DISCUSSION Chairman Kasolas noted that he would like to have assurances that this project would be a positive contribution to the Dillon Ave. area and that it would not create a further parking problem, particularly for abandoned vehicles. Commissioner Dickson asked if this project is within the redevelopment area; and, he asked that the Planning Commission be made aware of the Redevelopment Agency's policy for referral of projects. Commissioner Stanton asked about the storage of hazardous materials on the site, and inspection and enforcement practices. Staff responded that this site is outside the boundary for referring projects to the Redevelopment Agency; that there is a hazardous materials ordinance which is enforced by the Fire Department; and, that the Fire Department has authority, under the Uniform Fire Code, to perform routine inspections and inspection warrants could be obtained if there was probable cause. AMENDMENT TO MOTION Commissioner Perrine proposed that the motion for approval be amended to include a condition stating that on-site parking is provided for patrons only, and no parking spaces are available for rental or storage of vehicles on the site. _ Commissioner Dickson noted that the site plan does not indicate parking designated for rental or vehicle storage, and that the added condition could amplify any possible situation, creating an enforcement problem; however, he stated he would accept the amendment to the motion. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That Condition No. 22 be added stating that on-site parking is provided for patrons only, and no parking spaces are available for rental or storage of vehicles on the site. Motion for amendment carried with a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Fairbanks voting "no". VOTE ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL INCLUDING AMENDMENT AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas PJOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * * ~ -6- UP 86-07 Public hearing to consider the applica- Manoukian, 0. tion of P1r. Ohan Manoukian for a Use Permit and approval of plans to allow the conversion of a garage to living space on property known as 750 Century Drive in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, with a change in the conditions to provide that the work be completed in six months; and, subject to the redlining of the presented plans (building materials). Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Ohan Manoukian, architect, asked that the redlining, which provided that the garage door be stuccoed, be waived. He stated that the existing door is wood siding and it would not make much difference to change it; additionally, the stucco on the house is an integrated color which is impossible to match. Chairman Kasolas suggested that this item be continued to resolve this matter if the applicant was not in agreement with the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Manoukian stated that he would like to discuss the matter further with the Site Committee, and would therefore be in favor of a continuance. M/S: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That UP 86-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). The Commission recessed at 8:35 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:50. * ~ ~ PD 86-02 Public hearing to consider the applica- Anderson, K. tion of Mr. I:urt Anderson for a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of 2 townhomes on property known as 274 Everett Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/P4edium Density _ Residential) Zoning District. -~- Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and. Architectural Review Committee, and a continuance is recommended. Commissioner Dickson noted that this item has been referred to the Redevelopment Agency. He expressed a concern that the application has been discussed prior to the public hearing, in that this creates. pressure on the Commission when the item comes before the Commission with comments from the Council as the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Kasolas read the Referral from the Redevelopment Agency into the record (attached hereto). Chairman Kasolas noted that the downtown area is zoned PD (Planned Development), but the referral indicates an R-2 zoning. Commissioner Dickson responded that his concern is that this item requires a public hearing, and it should not have been deliberated prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Olszewski expressed the same concern as Commissioner Dickson and asked for an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Seligmann responded that, from a legal standpoint, there is nothing wrong with any agency .commenting or providing opinions on a proposed development. Essentially, the Planning Commission's charge is to obtain as much information as possible to facilitate the decision-making process; and, this is simply another input to that process. Commissioner Dickson noted that normally the other agencies to which projects are referred are not "approval" agencies. The Redevelopment Agency/City Council is an approval agency, and there is a difference. Chairman Kasolas asked if Commissioner Dickson was suggesting that the item be moved ahead; and, that a dialogue between the Commission and Redevelopment Agency be established. He asked the City Attorney to schedule an appropriate time within the next week for discussion of this matter. Commissioner Dickson noted his agreement. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would like to see the applicant explain how this development meets the PD Zoning District's requirement that the development plans must clearly demonstrate that the proposed use or development will clearly result in a more desirable environment and use of land than would be possible under any other zoning classification -- how more units are better. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. _ M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on PD 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission j meeting of July 8, 1986. Motion carried '- unanimously (7-0-0). -8- PD 86-03 Public hearing to consider the applica- Hester, L. tion of Mr. Larry Hester for approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of an office/warehouse building on properties known as 40 & 48 Railway Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Because this item is being reviewed by the Redevelopment'Agency, a continuance is being recommended. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is recommending a continuance with the applicant's concurrence. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on PD 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). EIR 86-02 Public hearing to consider the Draft Chalmers, W. L. Environmental Impact. Report prepared for a proposed industrial complex on property known as 700 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford briefly reviewed the Draft EIR, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the impacts discussed in the report have been adequately identified; however, Staff would recommend that additional mitigation measures be provided to minimize the visual impact of the mini-storage facility through the provision of on-site landscaping and architectural modifications. Chairman Kasolas noted a petition which was received from area residents indicating their opposition to the proposed development. The petition (copy attached) was. read into the record. Commissioner Olszewski questioned the acceptability of Figures 10 & 11 of the report, using drawings as artistic renditions. Pir. Stafford indicated that in other reports, pictures have been included. Staff looks for the drawings to accurately depict what the project would look like upon completion. -9- Commissioner Dickson stated that the drawings didn't do any good, in that the majority of drawings are not to scale. He felt that pictures would provide a better prospective. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. George Iieeg, EIR Consultant, determining the traffic level of explained that the drawings in tl photographs, and the scale could refers to an aerial which is not reproduction problems. spoke regarding the methodology used in services calculations. He further ie report were tracings of actual on-site be defended from the drawings. Figure 5 included in the report because of Mr. John Robascotti, 680 Sweetbriar Drive, stated his concern about the continuity of the fence line in that his property backs up to the construction yard and the pipe yard. Mr. Kee indicated that eventually there will be standard single family homes backing up to the speaker's property. Mr. Fred Wagener, 690 Parkdale, also speaking on behalf of Mr. Paul Barber, spoke regarding problems with the industrial area. Mr. [Wagener stated that he is tired of the problems caused by the light industrial uses in that they are really more like heavy industrial uses; he also noted possible future problems when the properties are sold, including chemical storage; and, the impossibility of controlling what is stored in mini-storage facilities. Mr. James Le Blanc, 691 Stanfield, expressed concern about the height of the proposed buildings and the perspective from the residential area, noting the the area residents did not feel the EIR presented an accurate projection and would be more visible than indicated. Pir. Heeg reviewed the perspectives in the report, noting the location from which the drawings were discerned. Mr. Wagener noted that if the homeowners had their own report, the results would be completely different. He continued that he is not against light industrial uses, however, the situation is out of control in this area; and, there is not way to control what will be stored in these units, nor what future owners might do with the property. Commissioner Olszewski asked Mr. Wagener if he was asking that the EIR address what types of items would be stored in the mini-storage units. Mr. Wagener indicated that this was a concern, as well as the fact that the report was prepared by the same company that did the EIR for West Valley Construction Co. which the residents did not agree with at that time. -10- P~ir. David Larson, 690 Sweetbriar Dr., questioned the location of the proposed 8 foot fence/wall in relation to the proposed buildings. Mr. Kee responded that 21 feet is indicated on the presented plan between the wall and the proposed buildings. The presented plans indicate a three story building to the south of the property abutting the not yet constructed residential units. Pir. Kee reiterated that the EIR is to provide information upon which to base a decision regarding a project. The project itself is the next item on the agenda, and the Site Committee expressed specific problems ~oith the "S" approval and will be recommending a continuance. Chairman Kasolas asked about the current use of the subject property, noting that it is full of old trucks, etc. Iie asked that the EIR address itself to any adverse effects to the environment due to the past and present uses of the site being amplified. Commissioner Dickson noted the following areas of concern in the EIR: 1. Page 2, Step 4 - misleading, should be further explained. 2. Page 2, bottom - refer to Fig. 1 - believe use of setbacks is inadequate, especially Fig. 1 which should have been covered by the site layout. 3. .Page 3, Fig. 1 - PG&E easement not shown. 4. Page 6, bottom of pg. refer to Fig. 5 - believe completely inadequate. 5. Page 9, bottom next to last line - no definition of limited accessibility over weekend - could be full time use or one person allowed. 6. Page 12, line 5 - operator on duty at all times when open - not clearly defined. 7. Page 15, line 4 - untrue statement - requires site review, etc. 8. Fig. 8 & 9 - very misleading sketches. 9. Page 15, last Para. - misleading statement. Common ownership now, but nothing requiring this to remain; think it should be treated like separate ownership. 10. Page 16 - sktch not scaled. 11. Page 17, Fig. 9 - can't determine projection. 12. Page 18, Fig. 10, 11 & 12 - again, sketches. 13. Page 25, Sect. 15 - no treatment of solar shadows or effects on the residential area. 14. Page 25, Light & Glare - statement "could intrude". 15. Page 26 - again talking about a future residential development - this design should protect that residential use. 16. Page 27, Sect. 16, Para. B, last sentence - disagree with - the Plannin Commission's job is to make sure there is compatibility. Chairman Kasolas asked if the present residential zoning on the southern portion of this site allowed storage; and, if not, he felt the use should be stopped. -11- Commissioner Christ noted that he was concerned with Page 15 of the EIR addressing landscaping. At the present time there are no residential property owners in the subject area to maintain the proposed trees. It should be addressed in the EIP. that this landscaping will have to be maintained until there are residences. Al/S: Dickson, Christ - That the public hearing on EIR 86-02 be continued in order that the consultant may address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, includin; an analysis of the visual impact on neighboring residential area. DISCUSSION Oid Pi0TI0td Commissioner Christ felt that it would be beneficial if actual prints were provided with lines drawn on to indicate site plan. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would like to see scale drawings to meet the concerns of the neighbors. He would also like to see tree retention and condition addressed. Commissioner Olszewski noted that he is not in favor of the motion for continuance because this is a Draft EIR which has done it's job, in his opinion, and comments from this evening's testimony should be addressed in the Final EIR. A continuance of this report has created another step in the process. VOTE OP7 MOTION Motion for continuance to July 8, 1986 carried with. a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Olszewski voting "no". S 86-06 Application of P1r. td. L. Chalmers for Chalmers, W. L. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of 4 industrial buildings on property known as 700 P1cGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. A continuance to July 8, 1986 is being recommended, with a strong recommendation for a reduction in the size of the proposed buildings. t~4r. Kee noted that Staff is also recommending a continuance in order that concerns indicated in the Staff Report can be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner Christ stated that the recommendation for continuance is without the applicant's concurrence. -12- P1r. Bob Saxe, Attorney representing Mr. Chalmers, stated that the applicant has no problem with a continuance. The applicant was under the impression that the issues were considerably narrow revolving around building mass and landscaping - issues to which the architect has raised several possibilities that could alleviate the concerns. Pir. Saxe continued that he would like discussion from the Commission addressing the apparent confusion of the neighbors as to what the proposed project is supposed to do. tir. Saxe felt that it might be important to note that rlr. Chalmers does have approval of a tentative map to construct 12 homes between the existing residences and the proposed mini-storage. Chairman Kasolas stated that the Commission will not make a commitment on the proposal until the final plans are presented, in that it is not the Commission's policy , and would be most inappropriate, to prejudge a project. Mr. Seligmann noted that the Chairman's statement was correct - the Commission's role is to decide on what is presented, rather than to design projects. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would prefer not to hear the matter of S 86-06 this evening, but continue its discussion until after the EIR is determined to be complete. However, she would like to note her concerns with the project; particularly the south wall that addresses potential residences as it relates to color and building materials. Commissioner Fairbanks continued that the Commission's policy has been for masonry walls between mixed uses; and, she will be looking for significant landscaping as a buffer between residences and mini-storage. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that the EIP. was confusing to her in that it sounds like the landscaping is going to be 'dumped' right in on the R-1. Commissioner Christ suggested that the applicant meet with Staff to discuss the project's design. Commissioner Olszewski noted that the issues indicated in the Staff Report are the issues that were dealt with in the Site and Architectural Review meeting. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That S 86-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 1986 in order that the applicant can address concerns indicated in the Staff Report, as well as issues discussed by the Planning Commission this evening. t~totion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * ~ ~ The Commission recessed at 10:18 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Commissioner Fairbanks left the meeting at this time. ~ * ~ -13- MISCELLAtdOUS MM 86-08 Continued application of Mr. Bruno Bicocca, B. Bicocca for a modification to an existing development to construct a flower stand in the parking area of a commercial center on property known as 75 N. San Tomas Aquino Rd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that this item has been continued from meetings of March 25, April 22, May 13, and May 27, 1986, in order that the applicant could submit revised plans addressing the concerns expressed by Staff and the Commission. In that Staff has not received new plans since April 8, 1986, Staff is of the opinion that because of the number of continuances and the lack of progress, action should be taken at this time. Staff is recommending denial. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt findings attached hereto and deny MM 86-08 without prejudice. notion carried with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Fairbanks being absent. SA 86-21 Sign application of Midas Muffler for Piidas Muffler property known as 1236 Whiteoaks Rd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee considered this application as a modification and improvement, to a legally existing sign; therefore, approval is recommended. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the attached findings be adopted, and that SA 86-21 be approved, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated June 10, 1986. Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Fairbanks being absent. * ~ ~ MI~f 86-14 Application of Air. Steve Welge on Welge, S. behalf of ARCO for a modification to an approved use permit (UP 82-06) to allow interior alterations to an existing mini-market and gas station on property known as 2015 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-3-S (Central Business District ---- Commercial) Zoning District. -14- Mr. Kee reported that ARCO is proposing to modify the interior of the mini-market use. The modification involves the relocation of the sales counter, expansion of the hot food center, and the addition of several partition walls. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed interior alterations should not adversely effect the operation of the store, and is recommending approval. However, in the past, the Commission has expressed a concern regarding the lack of public restrooms at this location. One restroom is present, but is not available to the public, although it does have an exterior door. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval for this modification, the restroom be made available to the public during business hours. In addition, if it is to be used by the public, it will have to be made handicap accessible. M/S: Perrine, Stanton That the attached findings be adopted, and that Mti 86-14 be approved, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated June 10, 1986, and as redlined. Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commission Fairbanks being absent. MM 86-11 Application of Pir. Morris Stark, on S 86-03 behalf of Mr. Fred Sahadi, for approval Stark, M• of plans and elevations to permit a -~ modification to a previously approved i plan to allow the construction of a 94-unit motel, related restaurant and recreational facilities, and 2,778 sq.ft. of retail space in the northerly portion of an existing shopping center (The Pruneyard) on property known as 1875 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is requesting additional detail to come back to the Planning Director. The Architectural Advfsor was quite impressed with the design of the changes submitted. A parking concern was discussed by the Committee; however, the Committee believes a plan can be worked out whereby a detailed parking plan will come back prior to the issue of a building permit. Such a plan to include the details of valet parking, and designated parking. Approval is recommended with that one concern regarding parking. Chairman Kasolas asked when, in the past, the Commission has made a parking plan a condition of the building permit. Commissioner Perrine noted that in this particular case, there are many uses on the site and there appear to have been concerns previously ^, expressed regarding the parking on this site. The recommendation regarding the parking plan was a judgment call of the Committee. -15- PIr. Kee noted that there is a condition on the previously approved S 86-03 which indicates that if designated parking is provided for the motel, Planning Comnmission approval is required. Chairman Kasolas noted that, in other words, if the applicant wishes to move the project ahead without designated parking it would be permissable. Chairman Dickson indicated that the Commission has the authority to put any condition on a project, regardless of cahat was done in the past. Commissioner Christ stated that he and Commissioner Fairbanks brought out the parking issue when this project was first before the Commission. There are several uses on this site, and it is the applicant's obligation to provide the Commission with the information on how he can make that parking work. Commissioner Christ continued that there. are also recommended findings which deal with parking - the Commission is asked to find that there is adequate parking. In that there is no evidence supporting this finding, Commissioner Christ felt it should be taken off. Iie noted that he would be willing to make that finding if information is provided which proves that the parking will work. Commissioner Stanton noted that it has been determined that sufficient parking is available - where did the term "designated" parking come from? Who enforces the designated parking? Mr. Kee stated that if there is going to be designated parking - a detailed plan should be provided. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the provision of adequate parking; designated parking; and, the concept of valet parking. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and approve DiM 86-11/S 86-03, subject to the attached conditions. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Commissioner Olszewski stated his concern about the area directly adjacent to the motel being designated parking. However, he noted that he had a problem with the building permit being held up just to get a parking plan. He asked if there was another way. Commissioner Dickson noted that Condition 17 handles this concern. Commissioner Christ stated that he felt there was parking being designated, but not being shown on the presented plans. He noted that he would prefer not to have designated parking; however, if there is to be designated parking he would like to know where it is and how it will work so that there will be minimal problems. He continued that he is against _ making everything designated, and would rather see some designated parking at this point, and more later if necessary. -16- Mr. Fred Sahadi, applicant, spoke at length regarding the designated parking at the shopping center. Mr. Sahadi indicated that he would like the Commission to give him flexibility in the number of spaces to be designated for motel use. Lengthy discussed ensued regarding this issue of designated parking. At this time, Commissioners Dickson and Stanton withdrew their motion for approval. Commissioner Olszewski asked Mr. Sahadi how much time would be needed for a designated parking plan to come back to the Commission. tor. Sahadi stated that there was a designated parking plan before the Commission. He asked that the Commission give leeway to approve the plan and let him come back to the Site Committee for approval (as opposed to the Commission as a whole), in that he did not know just how many designated spaces would work. The number of spaces necessary will not be determined until the motel is in operation. Commissioner Dickson asked if there was designated parking on the presented plan, or not. Mr. Y.ee responded that it could be interpreted either way, in that there is nothing written on the plan to specify designated parking. Chairman Kasolas noted that the applicant wants the ability to designate no more than 117 spaces at some time in the future, or less, as seen fit. This is necessary for the financing purposes on the project. Mr. Kee stated that he would suggest that the presented plans be redlined to indicate the Commission's choice. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt findings as attached, and approve MM 86-11/S 86-03, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report dated June 10, 1986, minus Condition 417 ("If designated parking is provided for the inn, Planning Commission approval is required"), and with the statement added that the Planning Commission determined that up to 11.7 parking spaces may be designated for motel use only. Motion carried with a vote of 5-1-1, with Commissioner Christ voting "no", and Commissioner Fairbanks being absent. **~; PUBLIC HEARINGS -17- TS 86-01 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated text amendment to revise the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Campbell. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Stanton, Christ - t•1ISCELLANEOUS EIR Review Process That the public hearing on TA 86-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~ ~ Informational item outlining EIR P.eview process. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CITY OF DAMP®ELL REFERRAL FORM CITY OOUNCIL/ADVISORY ODM~f1SSION~STAFF TO George Kasola.s, Chairnlan Planning mission FROM Michael Kotowski, Chairman Campbell Redevelopment Agency INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS FORM ~~~~~~ D 64AY 2 31986 l~T1~ 0 F CAM E~ Li~1f.,t` IAUIralalla~ ~ffl~,a,a~rra~ THI! FORM !MOULD BE UTILIZED 11HENEVER A REFERRAL i! MADE FROM ONE ELECTED OR ADVIlORY ~OOY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR AOVIlORY GOMMI!lION OR CITY MANAQER• THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TH18 FORM !MOULD BE tROVIDED OY THE INITIATOR AT THE TIME THE REFERRAL t! MADE- THE !TAPE AOVtlOR GILL •E RE3PONlIOLE FOR COMPLET/N6 THE FORM FOR REVtE11 AND lIaNATURE DY THE MAYOR OR COMM1lSION CHAIRMAN. PI~OSID DEVII~~1T QF ZW4-UNIT TOVfTl~iCME - 274 EVERETr - PD 86-02 SUBJECT (A SPEC 1 F i C SUNOr1ARY OF THE REFERRAL ) At the meeting of May 20, 1986, the R,edevelounent A~encv directed that the following concerns re~ardine the pronos~d deyPlornlPnt hP conveyed to the Planning Commission: 1) Coverage on site; _ 2) Tandem parkin 3) Setbacks; 4) Density; 5) The proposed development is located in the permit parkins. one: and _F1 It should be demonstrated that the PD Use is a better use than could. be achieved by another a~ning category such as ft-2. Because of these reasons, the Redevelopment Agency does not feel that the proposed development would be appropriate at this time. ACTION REt1UESTED INFORMATION ONLY Q RQGOMMQID ACTION D TAKE ACTION O~II~NTS (1 F NECESSARY.) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (BY NHAT DATE THE ACTION SIiOULD $E OphIPLETED. IF NO DATE IS SPECIFIED, THAT SHOULD BE INDICATED ) DATE 5/23/86 sicavwTURE Michael Kotowski, Chairman/bv: A. Coyne MAYOR A VISORY COMMfSS ON '~ CHAIRMAN Agency Secrets June 9,.1986 Members of the City Council and Residents of Campbell: This letter concerns the proposed industrial complex at 700 McGlincey Lane. As residents of the adjoining neigh- borhood, we strongly ob3ect to the three-story height of the proposed "mini"-storage units to be built by W. L. Chalmers. We find the drawings in the Draft Environmental- Impact Report to be very misleading. It is our opinion that a building of that proportion would not, in reality, appear to be in harmony with the existing residential neighborhood and would be overpowering visually, to say the least. A 2-story height limit would be a more reasonable proposal. Along with the questionable .perspective represented in the drawings and the expected overbearing height of the proposed storage units, there is the additonal question of whether the proposed new homes will_be built before the "mini"- storage units are constructed and/or whether the proposed new homes will ever be built at all. In the event that the homes are not actually constructed, the issue of the visual discord with the existing neighborhood again arises. r Please take this into consideration when you are making your decision as to whether or not Mr. Chalmers be granted a permit for the construction of the proposed "mini"-storage units. Thank you very much. Sincerely, ,(;,~ u nr's '~ ~„ ~ / 1 ` /'1 ~~ •- ~ ~ ~ ~ - v r(f ~- R, ~a~~~~i / ~f~{2 G A . ~ ~~~r'vL ~C2.yn.~,~.~-~~Q.t;,c ~Ciru~, e.Q~'c~ati, ~ ~~ ~c ~//^ c"~ ? CITY OF CAMPS N e. ,.• i Cf ,, . ...I~> ~~ ;tip, ~ (C ~-~ ~'(,`~ ~ , ~y n.1r~^.._ ~c~ ~- ELL i PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE NO.: MM 86-08 APPLICANT: BICOCCA, B. ADDRESS: 75 N SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD P.C. MTG.: 5-27-86 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The design of the flower stand is not acceptable. It is not integrated into the .site and it appears flimsy. 2. Landscaping on the site is inadequate. The asphalt paving adjoins the sidewalk creating the effect of an .expanse of asphalt. 3. The exterior design of the flower stand does not relate to the existing building and is not an aesthetically pleasing design. FILE NO.: SA 86-21 APPLICA,'VT: I•iIDAS I•NFFLER _ "- ADDP.ESS: 1236 WHITE OAKS RD. P . C . I•fTG .: 6-10-86 COIdDITI02dS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to obtain all necessary electrical and building permits. 2. Applicant to remove exterior fluorescent lighting on the building prior to replacement of existing signs. 3. Planning Commission approval is valid for one year. P.EC02.4~NDED FINDINGS FILE NO.: SA 86-21 APPLICANT: PiIDAS 21UFFLER ADDRESS: 1236 WRITE OAKS RD. P.C. MTG.: 6-10-86 1. The proposed signing color of yellow is more compatible to the building color than the present black letters. 2. The proposed method of illumination is more subtle than the present exterior illumination of the existing signs. 3. The requested number and signing area is no greater than previously approved in 1975 (SA 75-85). FILE td0.: NIP1 86-14 APPLICANT: Welge, S./ARCO ADDRESS: 2015 S. Winchester Blvd. P.C. PTTG.: 6-10-86 RECOr1MENDED FINDINGS 1. The proposed interior alterations will not change the overall operation of the mini-market and gas station. 2. The proposed modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working. in the neighborhood of such use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general. welfare of the City. 3. Providing a public restroom will provide a service to the community. CONDITIOPdS OF APPROVAL 1. All previous conditions as required by UP 82-06 shall remain in effect. 2. The restroom shall be available to the public during business hours of the mini-market. It shall either remain unlocked or be avaiiilable with a key from the sales counter. A sign shall be attached to the door of the restroom indicating "public restroom." 3. Restroom shall be made handicapped accessible as required by the Building Department. Handicapped parking space shall be designated as required by the Building Department. 4. Applicant to obtain all necessary permits from the_Building Department. ~I' _ -.~ COPlDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Greenfelder, J.D. APPLICATION OF: nP 82-06 July 6, 1982 Page 1 ~ Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural visor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. ~ Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning ommission within 3 days o Planning Commission approval. A Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. s Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to app icat~on or a bui tng permit. ~ Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for a buildin3 permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for building permit. ~ Applicant to either 1 ( ) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of a s,ooo to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping o pear ing areas within three months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete land- scaping, fencing and striping of parking areas prior to applica- tion fora building permit. NA Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to. the City Attorney limiting the use of the property to: square feet of office use, square feet o specu ative industrial use, and square feet of warehouse use, prior to issuance of a u~ ding permit. - ___ D All mechanical equipment located on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. E Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. N/A: Not Applicable to this application. 1~~" `. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Greenfelder, J.D. Application of: uP 82-06 Page 2 July 6, 1982 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to .meet the following eondit.tons in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell and laws of the State of California. F All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate .concrete curbs or bumper guards. G Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. H Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. I Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Department. (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code.) J Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage. wet garbage and rubbish produced within .the limits of the city _ of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley pisposal Company. ` This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units. to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. x Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. L Applicant sh~'1 comply with all appropriate State and City require- ments for the handicapped. ~ Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. . (~. _ f`° CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Greenfelder, J.D. Application of: UP 82-06 July 6, 1982 Page 3 M. No additional gasoline price. signs shall be placed on property. FIRE DEPARTMENT N. An additional attendant shall be present to care for the dispensing of the fuel at, the islands. Section 79.703(f)(S) Uniform Fire Code O. All dispensing islands shall be visible to attendants at all times. Section 79.703(b) UFC P. Locate one "2A-lOBC" fire extinguisher within 75 feet of most remote dispensing island. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Q. Provide a copy of the preliminary title report. R. Dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Winchester Boulevard with a SO foot radius return. S. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees to realign the curb and side- walk, relocate the traffic signal standards and the detection loops, and a any other appurtenant work within the public right-of-way required. . `. CITY COUNCIL T. No sale of beer and wine to be allowed between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. U. Use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in 6 months, fol- lowing Council approval, to determine whether the use is detrimental to the City of Campbell. V. The use permit may be reviewed at any time the City determines said review is warranted. STAPiDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEt~1ENT COh6'•1EFiT: The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris an~+ weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from property. Sect. 11.201 b 11.414, 1979 Edition of Uniform Fire Code. . I The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable _ Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this ; development and are not herein specified. ~ RECOI~A4ENDED FINDINGS FILE N0: P4•i 86-11 SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. BASCOPi AVE APPLICANT: SAHADI, F. 1. The proposed architectural design is compatible to the remainder of the Pruneyard Shopping Center. 2. The provided parking facilities, in conjunction with the provision of a valet parking service, should provide an adequate number of parking spaces for this project. 3. The proposed motel, retail and cafe uses are permitted uses in the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. ___ I +-~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 2'Il~i 86-11/S 86-03 APPLICANT: Sahadi, F. SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. Bascom Ave. P.C. MTG. June 10, 1986 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required ,~ to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Revised elevations to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or .Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $4,000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 5. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location `~..-- of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 6. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 8. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 9. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 10. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. 11. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign __ Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section ~ 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). ~`.. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; MM 86-11/S 86-03 APPLICANT: Sahadi, F. SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. Bascom Ave. Page 2. 12. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 13. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 14. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. 15. The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PLANNING DEPARTt~NT 16. Sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the cafe and breakfast room unless a conditional use permit is approved FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. Provide an automatic sprinkler system in all areas of the new structure. 18. Provide required occupancy separations between the motel & shopping center and the restaurant & motel. REDEVELOPt~NT AGENCY BUILDING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No comment at this time. PLANNING COt~'AIISSION 19. At its meeting of June 10, 1986, the Planning Commission approved MM 86-11, and determined that up to 117 parking spaces may be designated for motel use only. --